Tuesday, January 14, 2025

Ten Thoughts on Curbing the Worst Excesses of U.S. Militarism


January 14, 2025
Facebook

Image by Wesley Tingey.

As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take America back (again!) to greatness, there’s been much talk of Elon Musk’s new DOGE, or Department of Government Efficiency, and whether it will dare tackle Pentagon spending in useful ways. Could it curb rampant fraud, waste, and abuse within military contracting? Will the Pentagon finally pass a financial audit after seven consecutive failed attempts? Might the war in Ukraine finally sputter to an end, along with U.S. taxpayer support for that country of roughly $175 billion over the last three years?

“Efficiency” may be the word of the hour, but a more “efficient” imperial military, with a looser leash to attack Iran, bottle up China, and threaten Russia would likely bring yet more unrest to a world that’s already experiencing war-making chaos. When military “lethality” becomes the byword of even the Democrats, as was true with Kamala Harris’s campaign — her vice-presidential running mate’s main criticism of the Trump record on Iran was that his leadership was too “fickle” when it came to that country’s possible acquisition of a nuclear weapon — one wonders if any move toward restraint, let alone sanity and peace, is possible within the Washington beltway.

If Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy want to lead a useful DOGE when it comes to the U.S. military, they should focus on effectiveness, not efficiency. Remind me, after all, of the last major war America effectively won. Yes, of course, it was World War II, 80 years ago, with a lot of help from allies like Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union.

On the other hand, remind me of just how “effective” the U.S. military was in replacing the Taliban with… yes, the Taliban in Afghanistan after 20 years of effort and roughly $2 trillion in expenditures; or how “effective” it was in finding Saddam Hussein’s (nonexistent) weapons of mass destruction while bringing democracy to Iraq; or how “effective” it’s been in decreasing the risk of a world-altering nuclear war (while building a whole new generation of nuclear weaponry), as the Doomsday Clock of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists creeps ever closer to a thermonuclear midnight.

Color this retired Air Force officer red, as in angry and scared. Still, a new administration should represent somewhat of a fresh start, another opportunity for this country to alter its militaristic course. Perhaps you’ll indulge me for a moment as I dream of 10 ways the Trump administration could (but, of course, won’t) bring a form of “greatness” back to America. (An aside: Explain to me Donald Trump’s eternal focus on making America “great again” when any president should instead be focused on making America good, as in morally just and decent, again.)

1. It’s said that Trump’s nominee for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, will “end wokeness” in the military.  No more DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) generals, whatever that may mean. Apparently, the next administration wants to return to a military world of white men wearing stars (and losing wars) — the twenty-first-century equivalent of the heroes who “triumphed” in places like Korea and Vietnam in the previous century. Perhaps the new Trump administration should reanimate former Air Force Strategic Air Commander General Curtis LeMay to “win” a nuclear war against China or Russia. Whatever else you can say about LeMay, he wasn’t “woke.” Nor were generals like Douglas MacArthur in Korea and William Westmoreland in Vietnam. Nor, of course, were they victorious or even that effective, as was no less true of more recent “savior” generals like David Petraeus in Iraq and Stanley McChrystal in Afghanistan.

America, we don’t need a secretary of defense to “end wokeness” in the military. What we need is one to end warness, the pursuit of perpetual conflict across the globe. Instead of channeling his inner Darth Vader and choking the careers of the “woke,” Hegseth — assuming he makes it to the Pentagon — should act to rein in all its “warriors” and civilian neocons who keep boasting of putting on their big-boy pants as they clamor for yet more war.

2. Speaking of Darth Vader and Star Wars (and recalling its planet-destroying weaponry), the $2 trillion or so planned for the “modernization” of this country’s nuclear arsenal, including new Sentinel Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, a new stealth bomber (the B-21 Raider), and new Columbia-class nuclear submarines, could easily be curtailed, even cut completely, without faintly impacting national security. Instead, the U.S. could pursue nuclear reduction talks with Russia and China that would enhance world security so much more than building a whole new genocidal set of nukes and their delivery systems. If the Trump administration wants to show “greatness,” it should do what President Ronald Reagan once did: work to put an end to nuclear madness through diplomacy.

3. Speaking of diplomacy and disarmament, isn’t it time for this country to stop being the world’s foremost merchant of death? The United States is, in fact, an uncontested number one in international arms sales, accounting for 40% of the marketplace. For a start, Trump and his minions could regain a smidgen of moral authority by halting the endless flow of (nearly) free bombs, missiles, and shells to Israel, thereby slowing its genocidal efforts to murder yet more Palestinians in Gaza. (Good luck on that one, of course.)

4. If Trump is so keen to put “America First,” shouldn’t that mean sending money to Main Street, USA, rather than to Wall Street, K Street arms lobbyists in Washington, D.C., and giant military contractors in Crystal City, Virginia, and elsewhere? Euphemistically called the “defense” budget, the money that flows into the U.S. military is now officially set at nearly $900 billion, but its future ceiling seems unlimited and the total “national security budget” is already closer to an astounding $1.4 trillion. Why are Americans letting the Pentagon and the National (In)Security State gobble up roughly 60% of the federal discretionary budget, year in, year out, no matter which political party gains the presidency? In truth, America’s real political party is a warbird with two right wings.

5. Given those two right wings, perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising how often it spins, flails, and fails. Only recently, for example, the Pentagon failed its seventh audit in a row. Had it been a Trump casino, it would have declared bankruptcy and gone belly up 30 years ago. Even then, you couldn’t have dissolved and distributed its assets, since roughly $2 trillion of them are “missing.” (America, your money is MIA, or missing in action, while the American dream has been KIA, or killed in action, by wanton, wasteful, and wrongheaded Pentagon spending.) Want that institution to pass an audit? Cut its budget in half until it produces a credible and accurate accounting. Something tells me that the bureaucracy would finally “win” its war on the numbers if faced with the equivalent of a budgetary guillotine.

6. Isn’t it finally time for the Pentagon to abandon its global fever dream of “full-spectrum dominance”? An American military deployed everywhere is also one that is vulnerable everywhere. What sense is there in having U.S. Special Forces in 80+ countries? What sense is there in having roughly 800 military bases around the globe? Harkening back to my sci-fi youth, America today most closely resembles the power-driven empire in Star Wars (with the belligerence of the Klingons in Star Trek thrown in for good measure). If Elon Musk truly believes that less can be more (as in more efficient), why not start with far fewer bases and foreign entanglements?

7. Speaking of Star Trek, this country could use a new “prime directive” where we don’t go in search of monsters to destroy everywhere. Isn’t it high time we turned inward and focused on healing ourselves? As presidential candidate and Senator George McGovern, a decorated World War II bomber pilot, said so powerfully in 1972, “Come home, America.” Leave the world to settle its own affairs.

8. Speaking of new approaches, why not try rapprochement? Stop attempting to dominate Russia and China, countries that could conceivably destroy the U.S. (as we could destroy them), and start finding smart ways to cooperate. Echoing the business-speak that might appeal to Musk and Trump, isn’t it time to seek win-win scenarios rather than war-war ones?

9. They say fascism will come to America only if it’s wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross, but maybe some version of that is, in fact, the only way to neutralize future fascism — with critical patriotism (rather than jingoistic nationalism) that stresses fidelity to America’s highest ideals. Stop hugging the flag and start living up to the vision of a United (rather than increasingly dis-united) States, a true land of the free and home of the brave that refuses to be frightened by drones in the sky or an expanding China. Stop promoting a vision of a crusading America and start living a vision of a country in which peacemakers are honored, even revered.

10. The names of American drones — “Predator” and “Reaper” — reveal much about this country’s direction over the last half-century. What this country needs to be “great again” are military and government establishments that are far less predatory and reap far fewer bodies overseas or, even better, none. (Keep in mind the millions of people killed, wounded, or displaced in countries ranging from Korea, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia to Afghanistan, Iraq, and all too many other lands across this planet in this century.)

There you have it, Donald Trump and Elon Musk, my 10 thoughts on your all too dodgy (rather than DOGE) quest for “efficiency” and “greatness” (again). In a nutshell, efficiency, as in doing things right, is far less important than effectiveness, or doing the right things, as management guru Peter Drucker put it. So, for example, a more efficient military might have fought in a somewhat smarter fashion in Iraq, but an effective military (and government) would have recognized that such a war should never have been pursued to begin with. Let me be clear: I don’t want an “efficient” war with Iran or China or any other country. I want an effective American foreign (and military) policy where, to cite Abraham Lincoln, right makes might.

Put bluntly, you can’t do a wrong thing the right way, a simple maxim I fear will be lost on that potential future trillionaire Musk and his DOGE. Therefore, the U.S. military and government will continue to do all too many wrong things, perhaps in a few cases slightly more efficiently, only making U.S. “defense” policy ever more predatory and so reaping yet more innocent lives across this globe of ours.

When it comes to Donald Trump and Elon Musk, let me say the obvious: the U.S. needs a smaller military establishment capable of defending this country by upholding the ideals and freedoms delineated in the Constitution. Fighting endless wars in distant lands is not the solution here, it’s the problem. As a result, America has an ineffective military (inefficient as hell to boot) that essentially launders trillions in taxpayer dollars to merchants of death like Lockheed Martin and Boeing while filling far too many body bags with dead foreigners. Your DOGE, Mr. Musk, won’t change this, nor will your predilection for spoiling the Pentagon with ever-higher budgets, President Trump.

So, what is to be done, America? As the prophet Michael Jackson once sang, we must start with the man in the mirror. Collectively, we need to ask ourselves and by extension “our” government to change its ways.  Or, more effectively, we need to demand radical and extensive changes, since power of the sort wielded by this country’s national security state will concede nothing without a demand.

The forms those demands take are up to you, America.

In my darker hours, I wonder if, in our latest Trumpian moment, this country will be the national equivalent of the Titanic, post-iceberg — meaning that our fate is sealed. If that’s the case, maybe we can play sweeter music and be kinder to each other as we slip toward an ice-cold watery grave. But there are other moments when I imagine the iceberg still looming before the ship of state and a course correction still possible.

I hope that’s the case, even if our ship’s captain (Donald Trump) and his senior officers appear asleep at the wheel, while a few nutcases seem to be seeking that iceberg as a national death wish of sorts or, if you prefer, as an “end times” quest.  As Howard Zinn once said, you can’t be neutral on a moving train — or for that matter on a ship of state already deep in perilous waters.

To use a different nautical reference, a more hopeful (if fictional) one, before the USS Caine goes down with all hands in high winds and heavy seas under the blundering and blustering Commander Queeg, maybe it’s time for us, the crew, to take matters into our own hands, as difficult as that may be to contemplate.

Come hard about, America! Seek the fair winds and following seas of peace. If we have the courage to do that, we will truly save our ship, ourselves, and much of the rest of the world from looming disaster.

This piece first appeared on TomDispatch.

 The Dangers of Biden’s Legacy and Trump’s Inheritance


 January 14, 2025
Facebook

Photograph Source: The White House – Public Domain

A key measure of any U.S. president’s success is the ability or good fortune to leave his successor with a better international situation than the one he inherited.  Donald Trump inherited a relatively stable situation from Barack Obama, but his chaotic and unstable leadership did no favors for Joe Biden.  Trump now inherits a broad pattern of disorder in Europe, the Middle East, and the Indo-Pacific, and has named a national security team that seems destined to make all of these issues worse.

Sadly, Joe Biden is leaving the presidency with no awareness of his shortcomings.  He has charged Sudan with genocidal policies, but refuses to acknowledge his complicity with regard to Israeli genocidal policies.  Recently, Biden announced an additional $8 billion in fighter jets, attack helicopters, and artillery to an Israel that relies almost solely on sophisticated U.S. weaponry inappropriate for the terrain and the targets that Israel is facing.  Biden’s national security team ignored Israel’s right-wing attempts to undermine the rule of law, although the importance of the rule of law was Biden’s major campaign volley against Trump.

The Israeli Defense Forces have been politicized and radicalized in their support for Benjamin Netanyahu’s policies.  The same can be said for the Israeli police on the West Bank, which are conducting their own war crimes in support of Netanyahu.  Israel has made no attempt to examine the serious and profound allegations of the abuse and misconduct on the part of its military and police in Gaza and the West Bank.  The U.S. threat to limit arms shipments to Israel if humanitarian aid wasn’t increased was embarrassingly ignored by Israel.  In fact, Israel tightened the borders and the deliveries, and not even the unconscionable deaths of Palestinian infants has made a difference.

Soon after the war began, Biden arrived in Israel and signaled that the United States would give “carte blanche” to Israel regarding weapons transfers and diplomatic support.  Biden continually referred to his relationship with Prime Minister Golda Meir from the 1970s, and failed to realize that Meir’s Israel no longer exists and that Netanyahu’s Israel has become an imperial power in the Middle East.  Secretary of State Antony Blinken did worse: he arrived in Israel before Biden and stated that “I come as a Jew.”  Thank you, Tony Blinken.

Biden came to the presidency in 2021 with more experience than any previous president in the field of foreign policy and national security.  He said that “I know more about foreign policy than Henry Kissinger.”  In a recent interview, he told reporters that “I know more world leaders than any one of you have ever met in your whole goddamn life.”

But unlike Kissinger, Biden had a weak national security team, conducted foreign policy on his own, and ignored the Cold War situation that he helped to create.  Although the current Cold War promises to be more dangerous, more costly, and more implacable than its predecessor that dominated the 1950s and 1960s, Biden continued to paint Russia and China with the same brush.  Unfortunately, he received support from the mainstream media and the foreign policy community.  Kissinger had very different policies toward Moscow and Beijing, and improved bilateral relations with both of them.

We can’t begin to tackle energy and environment problems without establishing a serious dialogue with China, but as recently as last week Biden, Blinken, and U.S. Ambassador to China Nicholas Burns were lecturing Beijing regarding China’s relations with Russia and Iran.  Biden appointed Ambassador Burns, a Sovietologist and not a Sinologist, in 2022; since then, both Biden and Burns have been lecturing Beijing about its policies toward Russia, Iran, and North Korea.  But China isn’t about to change its relations with Russia, interrupt its huge purchases of oil from Iran, or alter its relations with North Korea.  China has its own problems with North Korea, a nation on its border that has developed a close relationship with Russia, which worsens Beijing’s national security situation.  Thank you, Nick Burns.

More sadly, a Trump administration offers the promise of worsening these problems.  Although Biden never fulfilled his commitment to create a “rules-based international order” and a “foreign policy for the Middle Classes,” a second Trump administration is likely to worsen the chaos and instability that earmarked the first Trump administration.  Trump’s national security team, if it survives confirmation, will certainly repeat the “carte blanche” of Biden’s four years. The “China hawks” at the White House (national security adviser Mike Waltz); the Department of State (Marco Rubio), and the intelligence tsar and the Central Intelligence Agency (Tulsi Gabbard and John Ratcliffe, respectively) hardly inspire confidence.  Trump’s self-proclaimed success was in the field of real estate development, but there were failures there as well.

There is no reason to believe that Trump can manage the array of challenges that confront the United States at this time.  And unlike Trump’s first term, there is no one in the second Trump administration that will be able to curb his worst impulses.  The Founding Fathers believed that the Supreme Court and the mainstream media would be able to limit Trump’s powers, but Trump has packed the Court in his favor and the Washington Post is leading the way in limiting the power and influence of the mainstream media.  Thank you, Jeff Bezos.

On the eve of the presidential election in November, the Economist asked “What could possibly go wrong?”  In view of President-elect Trump’s incendiary comments on trade and tariffs, Gaza, Greenland, the Panama Canal, the Gulf of Mexico, and Canada, we’re about to find out.  Trump called “tariffs” his favorite word in the dictionary.  It’s very possible that our worst fears about a Trump presidency will come to pass.  Thank you, American voters.

Finally, the leading columnists of the Washington Post and the New York Times are encouraging policies that will worsen both domestic and international challenges that confront the United States.  Regarding Israel, the Times’ David French praises Biden because he “stood behind” Israel in the Middle East, and Trump for the “hard line against Iran.”  Bret Stephens, the Times’ shill for Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party, praises Trump for recognizing the “need to spend a whole lot more on defense,” describing our nuclear weapons infrastructure as “decrepit.”  The Post’s David Ignatius credits U.S. military power for backing Israel as “it remade the Middle East,” and falsely credits Biden with seeking to “manage competition” with China, which is exactly what the Biden national security team failed to do.  Thank you, Mainstream Media.

Melvin A. Goodman is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and a professor of government at Johns Hopkins University.  A former CIA analyst, Goodman is the author of Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA and National Insecurity: The Cost of American Militarism. and A Whistleblower at the CIA. His most recent books are “American Carnage: The Wars of Donald Trump” (Opus Publishing, 2019) and “Containing the National Security State” (Opus Publishing, 2021). Goodman is the national security columnist for counterpunch.org.


AU CONTRAIRE

Will Trump End Washington’s Democratic Foreign Policy Façade?


Donald Trump’s political adversaries have long contended that he is a danger to democracy both at home and abroad.  The alleged threat that he poses domestically is symbolized by the riot his supporters waged at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.  Opponents denounce Trump’s foreign policy views both for being “isolationist” and overly sympathetic to autocrats around the world.  Trump’s mere willingness to interact with the latter individuals is deemed to be sufficient evidence of his own evil inclinations.

Aside from the internally contradictory aspects of the two criticisms, a key problem with the overall thesis about Trump’s alleged radicalism is that the substance of U.S. foreign policy did not change very much during his first term. Yes, his administration sometimes expressed pointed criticism of U.S. allies and security clients, especially NATO’s European members.  But the dominant theme of Trump’s criticism was that those countries were not doing enough for either their own defense or the collective military missions that Washington led.  His tone was sharper and more confrontational, but the content of his criticisms differed little from the complaints that previous administrations (going as far back as Dwight Eisenhower’s) had expressed about a lack of burden-sharing in the Alliance.

A shift in tone rather than substance is likely to constitute the principal change during the second Trump administration.  Trump’s predecessors in both Democratic and GOP administrations have strongly touted Washington’s alleged support for democracy around the world.  That stance complemented America’s supposed commitment to a globalist economic system after World War II.  The promiscuous use of the term “free world” was an essential component of the overall U.S. propaganda strategy.

Many of the countries and political factions that Washington supported did not merit that designation, even if the most vague and generous definition was used.  When U.S. policymakers and their allies in the establishment news media applied the free world label to regimes run by the likes of South Korea’s Chun Doo Hwan, Taiwan’s Chang Kai-shek, the Shah of Iran Nicaragua’s Manuel Noriega, and an array of military dictators throughout Latin America, the Middle East, and Sub-Saharan Africa, it is hard to conclude that U.S. official policy was little more than cynical propaganda concealing a variety of far less savory objectives and motives.

Such U.S. conduct has persisted throughout the so-called post-Cold War era.  For example, both the Obama and Biden administrations, as well as their conduits in the press, routinely portrayed Syria’s Islamist rebels as “freedom fighters” against Bashar al-Assad’s secular dictatorship.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton initiated Washington’s financial and military support for the insurgency in 2011, and Washington’s assistance was instrumental in the ultimate victory of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HST) in December 2024.  Washington’s rhetoric about the political orientation of the anti-Assad forces was a typical model of duplicity.

The whitewashing of Syria’s Islamist rebels, though, was eclipsed by the deceptive propaganda campaign Washington has waged on behalf of its clients in Ukraine.  The West’s foreign policy establishment (aptly nicknamed “the blob”) has misrepresented its own role in that country and the nature of the faction it has supported.

Biden and his minions routinely portray Russia’s February 2022 invasion as “unprovoked” and the current Ukrainian government of Volodymyr Zelensky as a symbol of democracy.  Both contentions are false. The United States and its NATO allies repeatedly engaged in provocative policies that intruded into Russia’s sphere of influence and even into the country’s core security zone.  NATO’s overall eastward expansion after the collapse of the Soviet Union was bad enough, but Washington’s determination to install and maintain a puppet government in Ukraine as a de facto NATO military asset became an intolerable provocation to Moscow.

The Biden administration’s continuing campaign to portray the armed struggle between Russia and Ukraine as an existential conflict between authoritarianism and democracy, not only was a gross oversimplification and distortion, it was (and remains) an insult to the intelligence of people around the world.

Those who believe that there will be major changes (either good or bad) in the substance of U.S. foreign policy during Trump’s new term as president are likely to be proven wrong.  His administration may try to extricate the United States from its quagmire of a proxy war using Ukraine to weaken Russia.  Trump’s frustrations with NATO generally may even reach the point of de-emphasizing Washington’s military role in Central and Eastern Europe.  Such moves would benefit the American people.  On the other hand, Trump’s renewed tenure is likely to lead to greater U.S. tensions with both China and Iran.  His intensified focus on Mexico and the rest of the Western Hemisphere could produce an assortment of new or enhanced troubles.  Few people imagined that Greenland’s status would become a significant issue, for example.

Manifestations of change, though, are likely to be more stylistic and geographical than truly transformative.  The phony justifications about defending or promoting “democracy” around the world that have characterized so many recent administrations will fade.  Trump is an old-style, unabashed nationalist and imperialist.  He has more in common with Theodore Roosevelt than with members of the early 21st century political and foreign policy elites in either party.  U.S. foreign policy may well become less hypocritical with him at the helm, and some geographic priorities may shift, but there is little evidence that overall it will become less activist.

Ted Galen Carpenter is a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute and a senior fellow at the Libertarian Institute. He also served in several senior positions during a 37-year career at the Cato Institute.  Dr. Carpenter is the author of 13 books and more than 1,300 articles on foreign policy, national security, and civil liberties topics.  His latest book is Unreliable Watchdog: The News Media and U.S. Foreign Policy (2022).

 

Sue Mi Terry: When FARA Applies to US Allies


Last week, I wrote a detailed analysis of how the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA) has become a tool of government overreach, often used selectively to stigmatize inconvenient voices, control narratives, and criminalize ordinary interactions with foreign entities. Today, I explore how Dr. Sue Mi Terry’s recent indictment under FARA flips the script: a career insider and former CIA analyst accused of failing to register as a “foreign agent” of South Korea, one of America’s closest allies. Her case is both troubling and perplexing, highlighting the selective enforcement of FARA and its chilling effect on intellectual freedom and open exchange – principles essential to democracy.

Dr. Terry is not a natural candidate for libertarian sympathies. A staunch advocate of hawkish policies on North Korea, she has spent her career in Washington’s revolving door of government and think tanks. Adding to the irony, her husband, columnist Max Boot, once wrote that “Washington should ramp up enforcement” of FARA, a sentiment that now feels uncomfortably prophetic. While it might be tempting to indulge in a bit of schadenfreude, this isn’t a Menendez-style tale of gold bars and hidden cash. It’s a case built on think-tank funding and diplomatic dinners, routine activities in Washington’s policy circles.

What makes this case alarming isn’t the behavior itself, which, while ethically debatable, is typical for Washington. What is troubling is the inconsistent enforcement of FARA, a law so vague and expansive it can be used to target virtually anyone. Just as bookkeeping errors have been elevated to secure felony convictions against political opponents or tax evasion infamously took down Al Capone, FARA allows the government to transform minor infractions into significant criminal liabilities. Terry now faces up to a decade in prison – not for harming U.S. interests, but for failing to dot every “i” and cross every “t.”

Her case may be an exception but underscores a broader truth: FARA’s misuse threatens intellectual freedom, open dialogue, and fairness. Principles must outweigh personalities – even when the target is someone whose politics we may vehemently oppose. If the government can do this to a well-connected insider, what chance does anyone else have?

Who is Sue Mi Terry?

A1.5 generation Korean American, Sue Mi Terry was born in South Korea and emigrated to the US after elementary school. Fluent in English and Korean, Terry pursued her interest in politics by earning a Ph.D. from Tufts University, writing her dissertation about the conservative hardline president “Park Chung-Hee’s Korea (1961-1979): A Study in Political Leadership and Statecraft.” She went on to work for the US Intelligence Community for the next decade as a CIA analyst from 2001-2008, on the National Security Council (2008-2009) and in the office of the Director of National Intelligence (2009-2010). After her career in government, she worked at a variety of elite universities and think tanks, most recently as a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Throughout her career, Sue Mi Terry has been a staunch advocate of hardline policies toward North Korea, aligning closely with South Korean conservatives. She has consistently supported tightening sanctions regimes against the DPRK and enforcing them rigorously while strengthening military alliances between South Korea, the US and even Japan. Her strategy aims to pressure North Korea into denuclearization through a combination of economic and military measures coupled with political isolation. Terry has also championed North Korean human rights and amplified the voices of defectors, arguing that unifying the Korean peninsula under the democratic ROK government is a necessary and urgent goal. While her views generally align with those of conservative South Korean administrations, she was highly critical of Moon Jae-In’s progressive, engagement-focused approach to inter-Korean relations, undermining allegations from the years he was in power.

I have never met Dr. Terry, even though we were both professors at Columbia University contemporaneously. That said, I have read her work and attended talks and webinars where she spoke eloquently and passionately about her ideas. Her bona fides as a scholar are unquestionable, and she is widely respected for her expertise and impassioned advocacy.

While I could not disagree with her positions more strongly than I do, seeing the world differently is not and should never be a crime in the USA. Like any good libertarian, I will defend her right to advocate for her opinions to the death, and I take no joy whatsoever in her indictment. It is entirely inappropriate that she faces up to a decade in prison for questionable judgment.

The case against Dr. Terry

So, what exactly did Dr. Terry do, and why is she being prosecuted for allegedly working at the direction of one of America’s closest foreign allies, and arguing for political positions that are completely in line with Washington’s foreign policy?

On July 17, 2024, the Department of Justice (DoJ) indicted Dr. Terry on one count of conspiracy to violate FARA and one count of failure to register under FARA. In a publicly released 31-page indictment that reads like the script of a bad K-Drama, the government outlined salacious details of her alleged misdoings and provided detailed evidence and incriminating photos to support their case. Publicly releasing such details, disclosing the shocking extent of their surveillance capabilities, is extremely unusual, especially in cases involving national security.

The DoJ indictment claims that Dr. Terry had been acting as an agent of the South Korean government in exchange for luxury personal gifts, funding for her think tank and meals at fine dining establishments in NYC and DC. In exchange for these rewards, she allegedly facilitated meetings between ROK and US officials, wrote a series of Op-Eds at their request, and shared unclassified but “off the record” details of inside information about US government policy with South Korean agents. In a voluntary interview with the FBI in 2023, she further admitted that her resignation from the CIA in 2008 was in part to avoid being fired due to concerns about her close relationship with South Korean National Intelligence Service (NIS) agents, admitting that she had indeed been a “confidential source” for them over the years.

The story, as presented, looks extremely damning, and the evidence outlined in the indictment leaves little doubt that according to the letter of the FARA law, she probably should have registered with DoJ as a foreign agent. The indictment claims that she had been informed about the FARA registration requirements on multiple occasions and even attended FARA training courses, so it is not like she just didn’t know about it.

While many of her actions seem ethically questionable and indicate a marked lack of common sense, none of them are illegal on their own – private US citizens are free to engage with foreign governments, and they are even allowed to accept money and gifts in exchange for lobbying on their behalf.  We have constitutionally guaranteed rights of freedom of speech and assembly, and freedom to petition the government.  And most notably, DoJ did not charge her with other underlying crimes. Her prosecution reflects a broader trend: FARA’s selective enforcement disproportionately impacts individuals engaging in routine, non-criminal behaviors with foreign governments.

Shared goals, stained reputations

It is standard operating procedure for diplomats to actively engage with the foreign policy community.  Foreign diplomats routinely wine and dine scholars over meetings that serve a mutual benefit. While it is possible that streak dinners may sway some people’s opinions, the meetings give policy wonks an opportunity to get a better understanding of the opinions, policies, and positions of foreign countries by engaging directly with them, and foreign governments obtain a better understanding of American attitudes and reactions to their policies and actions.

Think tanks, journalists, and academics would be hamstrung if such contact was disallowed or scrutinized too heavily by our government. For that reason, the indictment of Sue Mi Terry “sent shockwaves through the foreign policy establishment” and was met by a “deafening silence” from other Korea watchers in DC, who are not inclined to register themselves.

As to NIS funding her think tank, that is clearly intended to amplify viewpoints that were already aligned with their interests, just as FARA itself is used for narrative control. Agreeing with a foreign government’s positions does not make someone their agent, despite attempts to frame it that way. As an example, former House member Tulsi Gabbard was falsely accused of being a Russian stooge because her expressed opinions about the war in Ukraine and its origins conflicted with official Biden administration policy.

The articles Sue Mi Terry was accused of writing at the behest of South Korea include “A Korea Whole and Free,” suggesting the DPRK was on the verge of collapse, “South Korea takes a brave step toward reconciliation with Japan,” promoting the Japan-ROK-US alliance, and “The US-Korea Summit: The Future of a 70 Year Alliance,” originally published in Hankook Ilbo. The opinions expressed are consistent with her views throughout her career.

Spy games

Espionage against allies is not unusual.  \The US notoriously wiretapped the cell phone of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, as revealed by Edward Snowden. In 2023, a Pentagon leak revealed espionage by the US against its allies Ukraine and South Korea, among others. Jonathan Pollard has been called “one of the most damaging spies in US history” after he notoriously spied against the US for the Israeli government in the 1980s. There is nothing new about spying on friends.

It’s no secret that many embassies house intelligence officers posing as diplomats, but blatant operations can spark a backlash. The alleged actions of South Korean intelligence officers in the Sue Mi Terry case appear so careless that they must not have been concerned about being noticed. They likely believed (as Dr. Terry seemingly did) that since the US and ROK are allies, it was not inappropriate for them to openly go with Dr. Terry to luxury stores to buy her a designer handbag or coat.

The double-edged sword of identity

Dr. Terry’s case underscores the complexities of navigating dual loyalties, particularly for a Korean-born American with strong personal and professional ties to both nations. While the US and South Korea share a 75-year-old alliance and closely aligned goals, their interests are not identical. For those embedded in both cultures, distinguishing between the two can be particularly challenging, especially when personal motivations and professional responsibilities intersect.

The United States, as a nation of immigrants, benefits immensely from citizens with linguistic and cultural competencies that no non-native could replicate. However, identity inevitably shapes how individuals perceive the world, particularly when navigating relationships between the U.S. and their country of origin. For example, Irish Americans were instrumental in the Northern Ireland peace process but often supported groups like the IRA, complicating US diplomacy. Similarly, Cuban Americans, such as Marco Rubio, have steered US policy toward Cuba in a more hawkish direction than most Americans support. Ukrainian Americans, like Victoria Nuland, have championed confrontational policies toward Russia, fomenting the ongoing proxy war in Donbass.

For Korean Americans, the lingering trauma of Japanese colonization, Korea’s partition, and the dream of unification can add deeply personal stakes to foreign policy work, sometimes clouding objectivity. Dr. Terry is not the only Korean American scholar to face such challenges. Former CIA analyst Jung H. Pak, who served as the Biden administration’s Special Representative for North Korea, resigned abruptly five days before (and possibly because of) Dr. Terry’s indictment, highlighting how co-ethnic networks, even when well-intentioned, can become entangled in broader narratives of foreign influence.

A law without borders, a crime without harm

Perhaps the most egregious thing about her case is how it plays into every K-Drama-driven stereotype. The narrative of a South Korean-born scholar selling out her adopted country for meaningless baubles couldn’t have been written better by North Korean propagandists if they tried. While this story makes for salacious headlines, there is no evidence that what she did has done any actual harm to American interests.

For the most part, her actions were well within the normal range of behavior for foreign policy wonks in Washington. Engagement with foreign diplomats is essential to informed policymaking.  And if we forced everyone in Washington who has been treated to such “fancy lunches” to register as a foreign agent, most of the population living within 40 miles of the capitol would be on the list.

The DoJ’s motives for prosecuting Dr. Terry remain unclear. Was it because her actions were unusually public and sloppy, reflecting amateurish behavior by South Korean intelligence? Or was it a calculated warning to others aligned with friendly nations to tread carefully? Perhaps it was simply that her uncompromising, hardline views on North Korea upset the wrong people behind the scenes. Could it even be a sarcastic response to Max Boot’s complaint that FARA is underused? Whatever the reason, it underscores the dangers of selectively enforcing vague laws like FARA.

Regardless, the exceptionality of Sue Mi Terry’s case does not invalidate critiques of FARA. Instead, it reinforces the urgency of addressing the law’s inherent flaws. By criminalizing routine interactions even with allied nations, FARA’s enforcement risks stifling open dialogue and intellectual freedom, which are vital to informed foreign policy.

The Soviets used to say Был бы человек, а статья найдется.  (“show me the man, I’ll show you the crime.”) FARA’s vague and expansive definitions give our government one more tool to make that easier. If she broke an actual law, prosecute her for that, but don’t “Al Capone” her. There is enough real crime in America. We don’t need more gratuitous prosecutions under FARA or the tax code.

Rather than stigmatizing experts for engaging with foreign governments, we should recognize these interactions and their human nuances as essential to solving complex global issues. The last thing we need is to shut down communication under the guise of protecting national security. Dr. Terry’s case illustrates the urgent need to repeal or reform FARA to prevent its misuse and ensure that intellectual freedom and fair governance prevail. Her indictment is not just about one individual – it reflects a dangerous precedent that could stifle the voices necessary for effective policymaking.

Sue Mi Terry is wrong on almost everything – but her prosecution is even worse.

Joseph D. Terwilliger is Professor of Neurobiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, where his research focuses on natural experiments in human genetic epidemiology.  He is also active in science and sports diplomacy, having taught genetics at the Pyongyang University of Science and Technology, and accompanied Dennis Rodman on six “basketball diplomacy” trips to Asia since 2013.